Running Head: STROOP EFFECT 1

THE STROOP EFFECT EXPERIMENT

GROUP 2

Cinco, Kimberly R.

Legaspi, Jevy Grace A.

Lim, Queenie D.M

Mabao, Jane Camille V.

Macasaet, Aivan Joe G.

Minas, Jireh Joshua P.

Misola, Christian Angelo T.

Rabadan, Pauline B.

Romero, Choren Mae G.

Santos, Michael John D.

Santos, Poelyne M.

December 17, 2018

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree in Bachelor of Science in

Psychology
STROOP EFFECT 2

ABSTRACT

The “Stroop Effect” is the phenomenon of decrease in the speed of color

identification; a phenomenon that occurs when a participant must name the color of

the ink with which it is incongruent with the written names of colors. The aim of this

experiment is to examine the Stroop Effect and the difference in the reaction time. In

the experiment, there were 48 participants involved. The test has three stimuli which

consist: a list of words that is printed in black (Verbal Stimulus), rectangles with

different colors, and the color that is printed in different colors name (Verbal-intrinsic

Stimulus). At the end of the experiment, the experimenters concluded that there is

no significant difference between the sample reaction time under the intrinsic and

verbal-intrinsic stimuli between males and females. And between two classified age

groups which is group 1, ranging 18 to 19 years old and group 2, ranging from 20 to

46 years old. Males and group 1 has a shorter reaction time completing the

condition than female and group 2.

STROOP EFFECT 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The experimenters are thankful to our Dear God for protecting, guiding and for

giving wisdom to them until the end of the experiment.

The experimenters are also grateful to Miss Jacqueline Joy Lising for the support

and patience to the experimenters and for guiding them to make the experiment

possible.

To the parents and relatives of the experimenters for their moral and financial

support.

To extend their appreciation, the experimenters would also like to acknowledge

the participants during the experiment, and their full participation shown thru patience.
STROOP EFFECT 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page................................................................................................................... 1

Abstract.......................................................................................................................2

Acknowledgement.......................................................................................................3

Table of Contents........................................................................................................4

Chapter 1: Introduction................................................................................................5

Paradigm of the Study......................................................................................7

Statement of the Problem.................................................................................7

Hypothesis........................................................................................................8

Significance of the Study..................................................................................8

Chapter 2: Design and Methods……...........................................................................9

Population and Locale of the Study..................................................................9

Data Gathering Tool.........................................................................................9

Data Gathering Procedure................................................................................9

Summary of the Debriefing.............................................................................10

Treatment of Data...........................................................................................10

Chapter 3: Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data..................................11

Chapter 4: Conclusion and Recommendations.........................................................13

Conclusion......................................................................................................13

Observations...................................................................................................15

Recommendations..........................................................................................16

References................................................................................................................17

Appendices................................................................................................................18
STROOP EFFECT 5

INTRODUCTION

Before the Stroop Test became popular, the color- word naming experiment was

already being done by James Mckeen Cattel a student of Wilhelm Wundt in 1883, in the

first psychological laboratory, in Leipzig, Germany. Wundt recounted, that time Cattel

investigated the time required to name objects and colors and read corresponding

words, for his doctoral research. In 1886, Cattell recognized that naming the colors

required more time than word naming and these results were included in William James’

book in 1908.

The test achieved its identity in 1929 when John Ridley Stroop, an American

psychologist created a test in the laboratory of Erick Rudolf Jaensch (Killian, 1935) that

showed people cannot help but process word meanings, and that this caused

interference in the color-naming task. The test was then named as the “Stroop Test”.

The “Stroop Effect” is defined as the phenomenon of decrease in the speed of

color identification; a phenomenon that occurs when a subject must name the color of

the ink with which it is incongruent with the written names of colors (Encarta, 2010).

This occurs because the meaning of the word interferes with the task of naming the

color of the ink in which is it written. The identified color-word test, the true “Stroop test”,

was first introduced into American Psychology in March 21, 1929.

Stroop conducted two experiments. First, he compared reading a list of words

printed in black (verbal condition) against reading the same list of words printed in

incongruent colors (Stroop- Verbal Condition). He found out that there was little

difference in reading time for the two lists. For the second experiment, he then
STROOP EFFECT 6

compared naming colors for a list of solid color squares (intrinsic condition) against the

naming of colors for a list of words printed in incongruent colors (Stroop-intrinsic

condition). Subjects averaged 74% longer in naming the ink colors of incongruent words

; these two studies led Stroop to the conclusion that since people are more practiced at

word reading than naming colors, there is less interference with word reading than with

color naming(Mangun, 2012).

Two theories were considered in explaining the finding of the experimenters:

1. Theory of Visual Selective Attention - this theory proposes a special status for spatial

location in visual processing (Naatanen, 1992). According to Naatanen, selective

attention was viewed as selecting between messages arriving on different “channels.

Spatial origin or some other distinctive feature is the basis of definition of selecting

one “channel”. This theory allows a person to maximize information gained from the

object of focus while reducing sensory interference from other irrelevant sources

(Baron & Kashler, 2005).

2. Automaticity Model – this theory states that reading is an automatic process, which

can be turned off. Automatic processing must occur without intention, without

involving conscious awareness and must not interfere with other mental activity

(Galotti, 2010). Word reading is considered to be automatic because it is fast, it

produces interference even when subjects attempt to ignore the word, and it is not

subject to interference by ink color. In contrast, color naming is considered to be

controlled because it is slower, it can be voluntarily inhibited (thereby failing to

interfere with word reading), and it is subject to interference (Posner & Snyder,

1975).
 STROOP EFFECT 7

Paradigm of the Study

Independent Variable Dependent Variable

1. Verbal Stimulus Board

1. Reaction Time of the
2. Intrinsic Stimulus
Board Participants
3. Verbal Stimulus Board
4. Age
5. Sex

Extraneous Variable

1. The numbers of the

experimenters present in
the room.
2. Different perception of
colors

Statement of the Problem

1. Is there a significant difference in the reaction time under the two conditions

namely in the intrinsic and verbal-intrinsic stimuli between males and females?

2. Is there a significant difference in the sample reaction time under the two

conditions namely the intrinsic and verbal-intrinsic stimuli between the age group

of 18-19 and 20-46?

STROOP EFFECT 8

Hypotheses

1. There is no significant difference between the reaction time under the two

conditions namely the intrinsic and verbal- intrinsic stimuli between males and

females. Males have shorter reaction time than females, in completing the two

conditions.

2. There is no significant difference between the reaction time under the two

conditions namely the intrinsic and verbal- intrinsic stimuli between the age group

of 18-19 (group 1) and 20-46 (group 2). Group one has shorter reaction time than

group two, in completing the two conditions.

Significance of the study

The Stroop effect has continually fascinated psychologists, partly because it taps

into the essential operations of cognition, thereby offering clues to fundamental

cognitive processes. It reflects on people’s perception and selective attention.

Automaticity is also specifically demonstrated in which there is a tendency to

respond automatically therefore interfering with deliberate mental processing.

One simple impact of the interference of processing can be seen in our daily lives

as students. If we have a tendency to speak rapidly and are assigned to deliver

speeches in front of our class or in one of the events in our school, you will find it

very difficult to repress this tendency. Further research will help give better practice

schedules that will allow you to talk in a much slower rate of speech as well as long-

lasting results. The Stroop effect has also been utilized to investigate various

psychiatric and neurological disorders.

STROOP EFFECT 9

DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Population and Locale of the Study

The experimenters invited students from the Senior High School, College Level

of Mondriaan Aura College and students from other schools to take part in the

experiment. The experiment was conducted at Mondriaan Aura College, room Alpha

103. The total numbers of invited participants were 48; however, the experimenters only

used the results from the 30 valid participants. The remaining 18 participants were

considered invalid because some already took the same experiment last year and some

got confused on the instructions given to them.

Data Gathering Tool

The experimenters used three boards: The first board has color names printed in

black (Verbal Stimulus). The second board has black, red, yellow, blue and green

rectangles (Intrinsic Stimulus). While on the third board, words are printed in colors that

are not in corresponded with the name of the color written (Verbal-Intrinsic Stimulus).

The experimenters used score sheets to record the time duration of each participants

on the three tasks. They also used a timer to get the precise time that the participants

finish. The documenter used a mobile phone’s camera to capture pictures of the

participants who agreed to have photos taken.

Data Gathering Procedure

1. For the Verbal Stimulus Task: The participants were asked by the instructor,

who was also the experimenter responsible for giving the instructions to the
STROOP EFFECT 10

2. Participants inside the room, to read the names of the color written on the

board out loud and as fast as they can starting from top left to bottom right.

3. Next, for the Intrinsic Stimulus: Participants were asked to identify the color of

the rectangles starting from top left to bottom right.

4. Lastly, the Verbal-Intrinsic Stimulus task, they were asked to identify the color

of the words from the same order as the first two tests, top left to bottom right.

Summary of the Debriefing

The 48 participants were briefed before and after the experiment by the

experimenters inside the room and the de-briefers (experimenters responsible for

debriefing the participants). Before the experiment, the participants were asked two

questions: First, they were asked if they have already done the color experiment.

Second, they were asked if they approve of being photographed during the experiment.

After the experiment, the participants were asked to share their experience

concerning the experiment. The participants were asked if they had any difficulties

during the experiment. They were asked if there were any distraction or factors that

made them feel uncomfortable. They were also asked if they have any eye problem.

Treatment of Data

The experimenters used the Independent Sample t-test: Two-Sample Assuming

Equal Variances) with sex (male and female) as the parameter factor and the mean

time duration for each of the two conditions as the real factor to treat the data in

problem number one (Punzalan and Iriarte, 1989).

STROOP EFFECT 11

The experimenters used the Independent Sample t-test: Two-Sample Assuming

Equal Variances) with age [group 1(age 18-19) and group 2 (age 20-46)] as the

parameter factor and the mean time duration for each of the two conditions as the real

factor to treat the data in problem number two.

Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data

The SPSS result of the Independent Samples t-test

Problem no. 1:

1.1

Table 1.1

The table above shows the full summary of the t-test done for intrinsic condition.

The results clearly presented that the t-value of - 1.879 falls within the acceptance

region of 2.048 at   0.05 and is therefore, not significant.

STROOP EFFECT 12

1.2

Table 1.2

The table above shows the full summary of the t-test done for verbal-intrinsic

condition. The results clearly presented that the t-value of – 0.765 falls within the

acceptance region of 2.048 at   0.05 and is therefore, not significant.

Problem 2:

2.1

Table 2.1

The table above shows the full summary of the t-test done for intrinsic. The

results clearly presented that the t-value of -0.709 falls within the acceptance region of

2.048 at   0.05 and is therefore, not significant. Hence, we can conclude that there
STROOP EFFECT 13

is no significant difference between group 1 (age 18 to 19) and group 2(age 20 to 46) in

their time duration for the intrinsic condition.

2.2

Table 2.2

The table above shows the full summary of the t-test done for intrinsic. The results

clearly presented that the t-value of -0.933 falls within the acceptance region of 2.048 at  

0.05 and is therefore, not significant. Hence, we can conclude that there is no significant

difference between group 1 (age 18 to 19) and group 2(age 20 to 46) in their time duration for

the verbal-intrinsic condition.

CONCLUSION and RECOMMENDATION

Conclusion

The experimenters concluded that there is no significant difference between the

sample reaction time under the intrinsic and verbal-intrinsic stimuli between males and

females. Therefore the null hypothesis is ACCEPTED. The experimenters concluded

that males have a shorter reaction time completing the condition than females.

The experimenters also concluded that there is no significant difference between

the reaction time under the intrinsic and verbal-intrinsic stimuli between two classified
STROOP EFFECT 14

age groups named group 1, ranging from 18-19 years old and group 2, ranging from 20-

46 years old. Therefore the null hypothesis is ACCEPTED. Both age groups have a

shorter reaction time on the second test and both have a longer reaction time on the

third test comparing each of their reaction time on the two tests. The experimenters

concluded that group 1 has a shorter reaction time completing the condition than group

2.

Exploration of the Stroop effect is one of the purposes of this experiment.

Specifically to find out if there is a significant difference between males and females and

a significant difference between the two age groups in terms of their reaction time for

the two conditions.

Insua (2002) conducted the Stroop test on 2000 English and Spanish subject

students in the United States and showed that there is no difference in performance.

Furthermore, Galer et. Al, (2014) stated that in processing visual stimuli gender has

significantly lower effect compared to age gaps, educational attainment and prior

training and experiences. Also, time related differences between individuals have

greater effect on the speed in processing stimuli.

Another reason as to why gender is a weak basis is the fact that the reduction of

Stroop interference may be the result of the task-specific nature of the effort procedure

used (MacKinnon, et al. 1985). This means that the prior training might affect the speed

of performance of a certain person if the actual task is already introduced. Thus, effort is

an important mediating variable to be considered in all strop studies.

STROOP EFFECT 15

According to one study made by Mutter et. Al., age differences in the ability to

represent and use Stroop task context produced two findings consistent with current

models of the Stroop effect (Cohen et al., 1990), varying the proportion of congruent

and incongruent trials induced the participants to establish different task contexts,

which, in turn, led to different patterns in their performance. More important, this effect

did not vary with age.

Another experiment conducted by Huguet, et al., showed that the Stroop effect

was significantly reduced because of the presence of another person during the test.

They showed that in the presence of a person, the Stroop effect decreased in

comparison with a situation where the participant was alone in the room. Another claim

by Conty, et al., (2004) elaborated that results were influenced more by the feeling of

being watched than by the presence of others. Emotional states caused by individual

difference might be triggered (Baron & Kalsher, 2008).

Observations

The experimenter was nervous on the first experiment and tension caused the

experimenter to stutter, and the instructions were instructed in a fast talking manner.

After four consecutive experiments, the experimenter finally established consistent

ease. A few participants were shy and surprised when they entered the experiment

room because of the number of experimenters inside. Not all the participants

immediately understood the instructions and some had a look of confusion on their face

but hesitated to clarify the instruction.

STROOP EFFECT 16

Recommendations

 The experimenters may be welcoming so as not to let the participants feel

pressured because it is essential that the participants can maintain their focus on

every test.

 The experimenter may remain calm to maintain composure to avoid stuttering

and talking fast when giving instructions to the participants.

 Before starting the experiment, the experimenter may ask for every participant's

consent when taking pictures of the participants for documentation purposes.

 The experimenter may use both Tagalog and English language. The

experimenter may also indicate direction of reading by gestures when giving

instructions.

 The experimenter may ask the participants right after giving instructions if the

instruction is clear or if the participants have any clarifications to make. The

experimenter may also apply repetition for participants' different comprehension.

 The experimenters may be warm and accommodative but also formal at the

same time to maintain the experiment standardized.

 The experimenters may also limit the number of experimenters inside the

experiment room that the participants don't get shy or surprised.

STROOP EFFECT 17

REFERENCES

Baron, R.A. & Kalsher, M.J. (2005). Introductory Psychology (taken from Psychology:

From Science to Practice). (custom ed.). (pp. 54 - 55). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of automatic

processes: A parallel distributed processing model of the Stroop effect.

Psychological Review,97, 332-361

Galotti, K.M. (2010). Cognitive Psychology: In and Out of the Laboratory. (pp. 110 –

113). Toronto: Nelson Education.

Insua, M. C. (2002). Performance on the Stroop colour and word test as a function of

language in bilinguals. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences

& Engineering, 63(1-B), 559.

Killian, G. (1985). The Stroop Color-Word Interference Test. In Keyser, D., & Sweetland,

R. (Eds.), Test Critiques (Vol 2). (pp. 751 – 758). Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation

of America.

MacKinnon, D. & Geiselman, E. et. al. (1985). The Effects of Effort on Stroop

Interference. Acta Psychologica, 58. 225-235. University of California, Los Angeles,

USA.

Mangun, G.R. (ed.). (2012). The Neuroscience of Attention: Attentional Control and

Selection. (p. 230). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Mutter Sharon A., Naylor , Jennifer C., & Patterson, Emily R. (2005), The effects of age

and task context on Stroop task performance, (pp 525-526). Western Kentucky

University, Bowling Green, Kentucky

STROOP EFFECT 18

Naatanen, R. (1992). Attention and Brain Function. (pp. 27 – 40). NJ: Lawrence

Earlbaum Associates.

Punzalan and Iriarte (1989) Statistics: A simplified approach, pp. 135-139, 160-170

Manila: Rex Book Store

APPENDICES

Tools Used in the Experiment

Verbal Stimulus
STROOP EFFECT 19

Intrinsic Stimulus

Verbal-Intrinsic Stimulus
STROOP EFFECT 20

Raw Data
STROOP EFFECT 21

Treatment of Data

t-test computation for significant difference in the reaction time between male and
female.
STROOP EFFECT 22

t-test computation for significant difference in the reaction time between age groups
STROOP EFFECT 23

Critical values of Student's t distribution with ν degrees of freedom

STROOP EFFECT 24

Documentation of the Experiment

Inside the Experiment Room

STROOP EFFECT 25

Outside the Experiment Room

Debriefing Area Waiting Area